A of those emperors, who from Constantine the Great down to the slaughter of Valentinian the Younger, existed. In which our calculation errs in at least one year. For not 51 years, but 56 are counted from the death of Constantine. For that year, in which Valentinian was killed by Arbogastes, cannot be in doubt, since it is marked by such a distinguished character. For it was in that year that the Lord’s Pentecost was on May 16. Consequently, the Sunday letter was C. But Easter was on the fiftieth day preceding, March 27. Therefore, the lunar cycle was 13, in the year of Christ 392, with the solar cycle at 9. Now, however, Constantine dies in the year of Christ 337, as was established a little earlier. If you subtract 336 from the year 392, there will remain 56.
According to the Greeks of Artemisius. If the 21st day of Artemisius is May 16 in the Julian calendar, Artemisius began on April 24. And then a new and unheard-of arrangement of months will arise; for the "Greeks" are the Syromacedonians and the Antiochenes. Whose months are purely Julian, though called by Greek names. And for these, Artemisius is the same as May. Wherefore, May 16 is the 16th of Artemisius among the Greeks or Syrians; and this is supported by Epiphanius himself, as is evident from Haer. 51 of the Alogi. See what has been argued on that passage, p. 150. Here, therefore, for *the third and twentieth*, read *the sixteenth*. Regarding the death of Valentinian, consult the Annales of Baronius.
A DISSERTATION ON THE FOLLIS MILIARENSIS AND THE DETAILS OF COINAGE
(Cf. the book *On Weights and Measures*, col. 285, note 86.)*Follis*, or *talantion*. There is no passage in Epiphanius which learned men have more vehemently tortured, and which in turn has exercised them more bitterly; so variously has it been interpolated and explained. Not only did the obscurity of Epiphanius’s own words give birth to this variety of opinions, but also the difficulty of the subject itself: because things expressed quite differently regarding the *follis* are read in ancient monuments. And to me the nature of that term seems not to have been sufficiently explored by the common view; and when I had applied myself a little more accurately to investigating it, I found some things explained otherwise by learned and studious men than Truth herself and the testimonies of ancient authors would allow. Wherefore, so that my work might serve not only to illustrate this writer, but also spread more widely for the common good, it seemed not irrelevant if I were to expound more copiously and diligently what I had pondered in some studies regarding the *follis*, having been led to do so by the opportunity of this place; for this discussion will not be childishly sought out, nor appended for display like an ornament, but all things that will be proposed will be of such a kind that anyone who wishes to compare them with the words of Epiphanius will concede that we certainly ought not to have been more brief. As for us, in this very end of the work, this last labor to be overcome is the more eager since, having already finished as it were a long voyage, we now contemplate closer the land itself and the harbor. Whatever, therefore, has been handed down by the ancients and noted by more recent authors concerning the *follis* is recalled almost to two heads; for it signifies either *quantity*—that is, weight or sum—or a certain coin. We shall pursue both kinds in this short dissertation.
Of the *follis* as a certain collection and sum of money
C That I may not embrace in this first notion just the vulgar and trite view of the *follis*, I will enrich this significant discussion with a most insightful addition, that is, an interpretation of the same in a way I found in an old Glossary of the Basilica, which is in the possession of the Reverend Father Jacques Sirmond. From which I trust that some effort will be of value for explaining the passage of Epiphanius. Thus, therefore, these Glossae have set forth regarding the *follis*: "A *follis* was introduced under Theodosius the Younger as a tax on mules for the citizens of Constantine, of those providing the necessity of such beasts of burden in war. But another [type], called *follis*, seized [the houses of] the more notable families in the cities, because they had reached a status above the rank. And it was a misfortune that the superior [element] in the lineages was being judged by its quantity against the magnitude of its status. For those of the first class, eight pounds of gold; for those of the second,..."
four; for those of the third, two, as Hesychius the Illustrious says in the sixth chronological section of his *History*. A
OF THE FOLLIS MILIARENSIS
A *follis* is a weight, also called a purse. It holds two hundred and fifty denarii, that is, three hundred and twelve pounds and six ounces, seeing that each denarius contains one pound and three ounces. There is also another *follis* composed of small silver (coins) given to the soldiers, and for this reason called *militarenses*. Each of these small silver coins has one keration, a half, and a quarter. And the *follis* contains one hundred and twenty-five such silver coins, which make two hundred and eighteen keratia and nine nummi, or, according to the standard now prevailing, one hundred and nine miliarensia and nine nummi, resulting in nine coins in pieces, one miliarension, and nine nummi. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-five silver coins were gathered into one bond; and this was called a *follis*. There is also another *follis* having different quantities. For beginning from two pounds of gold, it proceeded to eight according to the status and the ease of those taxed. Of this, Hesychius the Illustrious makes mention in the chronological section of his *History*. Thalelaeus also makes mention of it in the second ordinance of the second title of the twelfth book of the *Code*, of which title the first ordinance was retrieved in the sixth book of the *Basilica*, title seven, chapter four; but the second was omitted, as having long ago been abolished by the divine Marcian. He registered the estates of the most illustrious men, having applied the objective, to which he himself gave the name *follis*.
So far the Glosses. Which Alciatus praises: and from them Ludovicus Vives in his commentary on the *City of God*, book XXII, chapter 3. But there some things in Latin are not expressed accurately, as happens in corrupt copies, which one might correct from our Greek texts. From the same source, a threefold notion of the *follis* is deduced: for it is first a type of tribute and payment, and this is twofold: one relating to mules (erroneously appearing in Vives as "of many," for "of mules"), the other imposed on the families of the nobility, whose authority is Hesychius the Illustrious, book VI. That the latter was instituted by Constantine the Great is written by Zosimus, book II. The Glosses demonstrate that a *follis* of this kind, or a senatorial tax, proceeded gradually through a triple distinction: so that the first degree was liable for two *folles*, the second for four, the third for eight. Mention of these *folles* is in the Theodosian *Code*, book XVI, title 2, *De praediis*, when, distributing the senatorial order into three categories, it says some possess two *folles* for taxation, others four, others more. The Glosses assign one pound of gold to each *follis*. But for the sake of the poorer individuals, it was later reduced from the canon, and the minimum tax for senators was reduced to seven solidi; which is therefore distinguished from the *follis*. For in the Theodosian *Code*, book VI, title 4, law 1, when Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius had decreed thus: "The indiscriminate assessment of two *folles* shall remain for all, even if they perhaps do not possess property," later by Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the tax was diminished; and it is said to have been defined by the counsel of the most eminent men that seven solidi should be paid annually for each B by its own portion. Ubi septem solidorum functio a folle perspicue separatur, quamvis Hotomannus lib. De re numm. pag. 570, confundere ambo ista videatur. And that tax persisted for some time. Laws 12, of the same title, states that the payment of seven solidi obliges the poorest of the senators. But that burden was later removed, as is evident from the Code of Justinian, lib. XI: for in title 2, that same book, Valentinian and Marcian write back thus: "We command that the *gleba* or *follis*, or the payment of seven solidi, or any tax of this kind, whether concerning persons, things, or estates, be utterly abolished, so that every exaction of this kind may cease forever." Before this constitution, the condition of the senatorial order was very harsh, and imposed as a penalty on some; for others it was removed as a great benefit, as is evident from the epistles of Synesius, and also Ammianus, book XXII, Julian, epistle 25. Which the above Gloss also shows. The second meaning of the *follis* is that which is taken by weight, of three hundred and twelve pounds, and six ounces. Which are 250 denarii: of which each has one pound, three ounces; Alciatus renders them "donos." But what they are, I would gladly be taught; for even the manuscript codex seems to represent it. Thirdly, *follis* means ἄθροισμα, a sum of money, composed of small silver coins, namely, of one hundred and twenty-five miliarensia: of which each weighed a keration with a half and a quarter. Thus, that *follis* collects two hundred and eighteen keratia, nine nummi. Alciatus's codex was corrupt in this place. For he translates thus: "There is also another *follis* collected from small silver coins, which was given to the soldiers, whom they called miliares." But the *lepti* contain one keration and a half. Thus that *follis* has two hundred and seven silver keratia and nine nummi. Therefore, all these silver coins were thrown into one bag. Hence the derivation of the name *follis*. And from those one hundred and twenty-five silver coins, or miliarensia, nine coins, or gold solidi, are made. For if you divide two hundred and eighteen keratia by nine, twenty-four will belong to each, which was the weight of a solidus. Isidore, book XVI, chapter 24: "A siliqua is the twenty-fourth part of a solidus, taking its name from the seed of the carob tree." Yet it seems there is a difference between a siliqua and a *κerάτιον*. For it follows in Isidore: "A cerates is the middle part of an obol, having one and a half siliquas." This the Latins call a *semiobolus*. But *cerates* in Greek, in Latin is interpreted as the horn of the carob. An obol is weighed by three siliquas, having two cerates, four chalci. Therefore, a *κerάτιον* contains one and a half siliquas. Whence in a drachma there are sixteen siliquas, twenty-four ceratia. In a didrachmon there are thirty-six siliquas, twenty-four ceratia. Since, therefore, the stater, or aureus, in early times had the weight of two drachmas, so that only four were minted to the ounce: for that reason it then weighed twenty-four *κerάτια*, thirty-six siliquas. Afterward, a third part was deducted from the weight, so that six solidi were struck to the ounce: and then it was called a *sextula*. Isidore: *Solidus*
says the drachma consists of three scruples, that is, 18 siliquae. Therefore, there are 144 siliquae in an ounce. If these be divided by four, they yield 36 siliquae for each old solidus; if by six, they will yield 24 siliquae for the *sextula* or solidus, which they also called *keratia*. A It appears, therefore, that 218 *keratia* are rightly assessed as nine coins or solidi; these the Glossary says are 125 *miliarenses*. These, cast into one bag, made a *follis*. From these same bags, military pay or donatives were paid out in this species of *miliarenses*. Whence the Greeks commonly believe the name *miliarenses* was derived, according to these same Glossaries, as if it were a "military gift" [*miliarsion stratiotikon doron*], and elsewhere generally. Nor do I recall any other origin of this word being proposed by anyone; yet it is deservedly rejected by our scholars; for from *militia* or *miles*, the term should have been *militarensis*, not *miliarensis*. Wherefore, if I may be permitted a conjecture in an obscure matter—and I do not see why this should not be granted—I would more willingly believe *miliarensis* is derived from the "millenary" number, because, clearly, a pound of gold was valued at a thousand coins of this kind. For the number of solidi or gold coins in a pound, although it was sometimes different, finally arrived at 72. For six, as has been said, were struck in an ounce. Hence it was called a *sextula*, because it weighed a sixth part of an ounce. Zonaras, concerning Nicephorus Phocas: "He was, among other things, inferior in wealth, as it seems. For until that time every coin held the weight of a *hexagion*, but he invented the quarter-weight, having diminished it in weight." C If, therefore, 125 *miliarenses* equal nine solidi, and 250 equal eighteen, then 2,250 *miliarenses* will satisfy 1,000 solidi, which is a pound of gold. The true derivation of *miliarensis*, as it appears, has been found from those excellent Glossaries, which had remained hidden until now, and had been corrupted and obscured by the Greeks, as is their custom. But more will be said about these *miliarenses* when we arrive at the silver *follis*; before turning our discourse to which, we must discuss the gold ones, if there be any. For until now the first notion of the *follis* has been explained, insofar as it signifies a sum and collection of coins.
Concerning the *follis*, as it is reckoned among coins: and first, it is shown that there were no gold ones.
The *follis* is a type of gold coin, says Cujas on Law 12, Cod. Justiniani, tit. 2, law 2. And he confirms this by the authority of certain laws of the Theodosian Code: such as laws 2 and 3, *Quor. Ap. non rec.* Likewise law 3 *de suariis*, law 5 and 21 *de prætoribus*. Which also persuaded others. And so the learned man, [commenting on] that place in the Alexandrian Chronicle, pg. 742—"In the time of these same consuls, a shortage of bread occurred, such that [he] suggested D that each loaf should equal three *folles*..."—interpreted it as gold coins. But from the laws brought forward by the great jurisconsult, nothing at all can be inferred about any gold coin; rather, the contrary can be most manifestly concluded from most of them. The first law imposes a fine of thirty *folles* upon a mercantile summons; by which term one could easily understand either silver coins, or a certain collection or bag of coins. In the remaining laws, it is amazing how much the logic escaped him. In law 3 *de suariis*, a pound of pork is taxed at six *folles*. Who would think pork was worth six gold coins? Therefore, I do not believe it was even worth as many silver ones: I interpret these *folles* here as bronze and small coins. Follows law 5, *De prætoribus*, which defines the mode of expenditure in the praetorships. For the first praetorship, which is called Flavialis, it prescribes an expenditure of 25,000 *folles* and thirty pounds of silver; for the second, called Constantinian, 20,000 *folles* and forty pounds of silver; for the third, the Triumphal, 15,000 *folles* and thirty pounds of silver. Who, finally, could persuade anyone that these are truly gold coins? For it is not plausible that a much greater quantity of gold was spent or granted for public shows than of silver. But if 25,000 *folles* were gold coins, into whatever number of pounds they might be reduced, they would immeasurably exceed the number of silver ones. Therefore, those *folles* appear to be bronze coins or *follerales*, which Lampridius in *Elagabalus* calls *folles aeris*. Such small species, and bronze ones, are read in the writers of the *Historia Augusta* to have been stipulated by name in the salaries of commanders along with silver and gold coins. Thus, "one hundred bronze [coins] daily" in Vopiscus in *Aurelian*; "ten thousand bronze [coins] of Philip" in the same author in *Probus*. "HS ten decies in *Bonosus*." Lastly, in law 21 *De præt.*, the signification of *follis* is clearly different and alien from any type of coin. For there it distinguishes a triple grade of the senatorial order, according to the different profession, into which some had two *folles*, others four, others more. However, *follis* is taken not for a coin, but for a canon of tribute and payment, which was wont to be exacted from senators according to the means and dignity of each: *kata ten axian kai ten euporian* [according to worth and means], as the Glosses say. Wherefore I have seen nothing presented thus far that could be an argument that the *follis* was a type of gold coin, but rather a sum of gold and silver, or certainly a silver coin, or a bronze one.
Concerning the silver *miliarensis*, which seems to be a part of the *follis*.
Before anything certain can be elicited about the silver *follis*, it is necessary to premise a few things about the *miliarensis*, which Epiphanius calls silver, since he himself seems to affirm that the *follis* is composed of that type of coin. That the silver *miliarensis* was a coin, and not gold, is declared by Novella 105 of Justinian, in which he prescribes the mode of profligacy for magistrates, especially consuls, and forbids them to scatter gold coins, while permitting silver ones. *Ou me*
rely of a smaller one, or a larger one at all, or of a middle coinage, or weight, but only of silver (as we have already said). For the scattering of gold should be allowed to the sovereignty alone, to which the scale of fortune A grants the power to disregard gold. But silver, which is the most precious thing immediately after gold, could be a fitting generosity for other consuls as well. This we allow them to scatter in what are called miliarensia, and *mēla*, and *kaukia*, and *tetragōnia*, and such like.
That the miliarensis was the twelfth part of a solidus—that is, that a gold solidus was worth twelve miliarensia—learned men have long observed; and consequently, that two siliquae were valued as the estimation of one miliarensis, since a solidus consisted of twenty-four siliquae. And for this reason Cedrenus calls the miliarensis a *dikeraton*. But this could by no means remain constant. For the *Nomika Glossai* teach us that about nine solidi contained 125 miliarensia, to which correspond 218 siliquae. Therefore, to each individual miliarensis must be attributed one siliqua and a dodrans—that is, one-half and one-quarter; but a solidus is valued at 1 8/9 to a miliarensis, as was said above.
Scaliger, in his book *De re Nummaria*, says that the miliarensis is the twelfth part of the *nomisma*, and corrects Suidas, who had taught that it was the tenth. And he says that it was worth two siliquae of gold, and was a didrachm, for the reason I mentioned, because it was a *dikeraton* and had the value of two siliquae, B each of which was worth a silver drachma. But if anyone wishes to examine this diligently, he will find it false and absurd. It is false, I say, both that the siliquae of gold were worth individual silver drachmae, and that the solidus was valued at twenty-four drachmae. For both these cannot be true at the same time.
For simple as it is, as far as the present subject is concerned, the standard of the Roman gold coin—which was later called the solidus—is defined by the most learned jurists at least up to the time of Justinian. The first, which is older, is the one in which four were minted to the ounce of gold, amounting to forty-eight to the pound. The second is from around the age of Constantine, when solidi were struck at seven to the ounce, amounting to eighty-four to the pound, as is evident from Book 1 of the Theodosian Code, *De ponderibus*. The third was established by Valentinian, in which six were struck to the ounce, at seventy-two to the pound, which also seems to have been observed thereafter.
But in that triple system of the solidus, those two foundations of Scaliger cannot stand. To make this manifest, it is first necessary to recall to mind that a drachma contains six obols, and an obol three siliquae. Thus, there are eighteen siliquae in a drachma, and one hundred forty-four in an ounce, which comprises eight drachmae. A pound contains 1,728 siliquae.
Now, at the time when four gold coins were minted to the ounce, C making forty-eight to the pound, each gold coin was indeed valued at twenty-four drachmae, or denarii; although I know that Dio and others reckon twenty-five. But so that, limiting ourselves to a small calculation, we may pursue the most round number, the gold coin was twenty-four denarii: and there was then a ratio of twelve to one of gold to silver. Wherefore a pound of gold was worth 1,152 drachmae, or 576 didrachms or miliarensia. By these, if you divide 1,728 siliquae, which are numbered in a pound, you will get three siliquae for one didrachm, not two.
Afterwards, when solidi were struck at eighty-four to the pound, if anyone says that each one was nevertheless of the same value as the old and much heavier ones, an absurdity will follow from this. For if you multiply eighty-four by twenty-four, you will find the price of a pound of gold to be 2,016 drachmae, or 1,008 Scaligerian didrachms or miliarensia. Whence it follows that, since there are ninety-six drachmae in a Roman pound (for eight agree to an ounce), D and since the pounds claim twenty-one drachmae as much—that is, 2,016—the same proportion of gold existed in the century of Constantine, which is twenty-one to one. Which is monstrous and like a prodigy; for Hotoman makes it credible that a pound of gold was taxed at the most to only fourteen, and a little more, pounds of silver, and that in the time of Arcadius and Honorius.
Then, even if we concede that, that a pound of gold was valued at as many didrachms—that is, 1,008—it will be another falsehood that two siliquae of gold were taxed at the price of a didrachm: for if you distribute 1,728 siliquae by 1,008 miliarensia, each will count for only 1 5/7 siliquae.
There remains that third time, to which Scaliger seems to have paid the most attention; for he speaks of the solidus, of which type six go to an ounce, whence it is also called a *sextula*. And by this latest calculation, a solidus carries off twenty-four *sextulae*. Since in the first it consisted of thirty-six siliquae, in the second of 20 4/7 siliquae. Therefore, the last attributes twenty-four siliquae to the solidus. But neither can two siliquae then be valued at the price of a didrachm, nor is a miliarensis, or the twelfth part of a solidus, worth a didrachm. For if seventy-two are multiplied by twenty-four, 1,728 drachmae will be made per pound of gold, and 864 miliarensia: which are how many *dikerata* there are. For we know there are 1,728 siliquae in a pound; but the drachmae make as many pounds, namely eighteen. Thus a pound of gold will be worth eighteen silver ones, which is unheard of. For these reasons that definition of Scaliger is vain, that the miliarensis was a didrachm and at the same time was worth two siliquae of gold.
There is also added that most clear testimony of the Glosses, which we mentioned above, by which one siliqua and a dodrans, or three quadrants, is imputed to the miliarensia. Indeed, to the solid coins, almost nine, and 125 miliarensia; to which 218 *keratia* correspond, not 250, as the Scaligerian conjecture demanded.
May someone ask: what, in the end, was the weight and price of a silver miliarensis, and what was the proportion to the gold solidus and the parts of the solidus? Indeed, I can neither affirm anything certain on that matter myself, nor do I judge that it can be affirmed by any. For that matter depends first on the estimation of the solidus; then on the ratio of gold to silver: both of which were diverse, and almost arbitrary. Nevertheless, as in obscured
A matters and those of an ambiguous nature, there may be room for probable conjecture. I shall explain in a few words how such a conjecture has come to my mind: I believe that the *milliarenses* gradually took their origin from the silver didrachms; for in the beginning, when four gold coins were struck to the ounce, and each was worth twenty-four drachms, or twelve didrachms, three gold siliquae—which according to Isidore’s authority are two *keratia*—were valued at the price of a didrachm. For there were, as I showed above, thirty-six siliquae in a gold piece, and twenty-four *ceratia*: wherefore at that time a silver didrachm was a *dikeratos*. Afterward, something was taken away from the weight of the solidus or gold piece, and consequently also from its value or estimation. For although the weight of gold coins is commonly diminished to that end, and more are struck to the pound, so that some profit might redound to the treasury from that matter; yet the valuation of the lighter solidus could not be the same as that of the heavier one. Otherwise, the law would be excessively unjust, and the proportion of gold to silver monstrous, as we demonstrated a little earlier. Nor yet was the weight and price of the solidus diminished by an equal decrease, so that when, for example, a solidus weighed two silver drachms and was worth twenty-four drachms, after it was reduced to the weight of four *scrupula*, and curtailed by a third part, the price of the solidus, in my opinion, did not descend B from twenty-four to sixteen drachms in the same proportion. Otherwise, the prince would make no profit at all from it. But the gold coin was taxed at some just and moderate estimation, so that the proportion of gold to silver was nevertheless greater than before.
We have said that in the century of Constantine, the number of gold coins in a pound was heavily increased, so that it arrived at eighty-four, and thus the weight of the gold coins was diminished by almost a fourth part. Afterward, under Valentinian, they were taxed at six to the ounce, or seventy-two to the pound. At this time, therefore, when a solidus weighed twenty-four siliquae, as many *keratia* as the old definition of Isidore took away, I suspect that the price of one silver coin was set at two gold siliquae: which indeed would by no means be a didrachm, but would have succeeded to the place of the didrachm, and therefore would be *bisiliquus* (two-siliquae), just as among the ancients, the gold didrachm was a *dikeratos*, insofar as a *keration* is distinguished from a siliqua. But when afterward C *keratia* began to be used indiscriminately for siliquae, that silver coin was held to be a *dikeratos*, because it was worth two siliquae, or *keratia*. There were 864 of such in a pound: for there are 1,728 siliquae in a pound. But what weight each one had can be defined from no other source than the proportion of gold to silver. Let us assume that at that same time, a twelvefold proportion existed. Since, therefore, a pound of gold is valued at 864 silver coins, which are twelve pounds of silver; if you divide that number by twelve, there will result seventy-two silver coins for every pound of silver, as many as the gold coins that go into a pound; and then twelve silver coins equal the price of a solidus. The weight of each is gathered from a comparison with the silver pound. For a pound of weight has ninety-six drachms. Wherefore, since seventy-two silver coins exhaust the drachms, each one will have one drachm, and almost one and a third, that is, about eight obols, or twenty-four silver siliquae. Which ought to have been the price of two gold siliquae; but if this ratio of gold to silver had been in force, the treasury would gain nothing from the increase of *solidi* to the pound. For that reason, I judge that the weight of the individual silver coins was greater.
Hotomannus, in *De re Nummaria*, page 347, notes that in the times of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, a pound of gold was estimated at fourteen pounds of silver and almost a half-pound, from *lex 1, c. De arg. pret.* For a pound of silver is taxed at five gold *solidi*, but a pound of gold at two hundred and seventy-two gold *solidi*. But the glosses cited above seem to retain that proportion more accurately, which is one to fourteen; for *milliarenses* are exchanged for a gold *solidus* at about fourteen, when 125 *milliarenses* are worth nine *solidi*. Let the ratio of gold to silver, therefore, be as one to fourteen. Then, if 864 siliquae, as many as there are *dikerata* in a pound of gold, are divided by fourteen, there will result 61 5/7 for each pound of silver. Let us suppose it is 62. If they are measured against the legitimate number of drachms in a pound, each will have a weight of one drachm, three obols, and 9/31 of one obol, or one drachm and 10 siliquae; which are 28 siliquae. This standard, and a weight of this kind, could have been that of the silver coins around the times of Valentinian and Arcadius, in which we have already said that a pound of gold was reduced to the number of 72 *solidi*: at that time, namely, when each silver coin was worth two gold siliquae, and a solidus weighed twenty-four siliquae. Nor, however, did the weight of the silver coins remain at that. But again they were diminished by almost a sixth part, so that no longer 864 silver coins, but one thousand were subsequently counted to a pound of gold. Both of which are to be confirmed by some certain authority. The Basilica glosses, according to Meursius, write that a gold solidus is worth twelve *milliarenses*—that is, twenty-four *ceratia*—*ecl. XXIII*. It is necessary to know that 12 *phalleis* make one *keration*, or half a *miliarision*; therefore, 12 *keratia* are half a *nomisma*; for a complete *nomisma* has 12 *miliarsia*, that is, 16 *keratia*. Item: according to the *nomisma*, it obtains 12 *miliarsia*. Then the same is also confirmed by Cedrenus, who accepts *dikeratos* for a *miliarision*.
Therefore, since there are 1,728 siliquae in a pound, it is necessary that 864 *dikeratos* silver coins go into a pound of gold, of which each has a weight of one silver drachm, three obols, and one siliqua, or 28 siliquae. Whence, since two gold siliquae are worth 28 silver siliquae, 24 gold siliquae will be worth 336 silver siliquae. Which, divided by 28, give 12. Twelve silver coins, therefore, minted at the weight I said, were worth 24 gold siliquae, or a gold solidus, and were properly called *dikeratoi*, being less than didrachms by eight siliquae. Now, however, from the Glossary of R. P. Sismondi, which we brought forward above, it is clear that 125 silver *milliarenses* are worth almost nine *solidi*. By which ratio 72 *solidi* require 1,000 *milliarenses*.
A Since the calculation of the silver weight was reduced, *milliarenses* began to be so called after 1,000 were reckoned to a gold pound. Regarding these, it is permitted to inquire into the ratio of the silver pound and the weight in the same way we established above. 1,000 *milliarenses* are struck from fourteen pounds of silver, or 1344 drachmae. Thus, each one has one drachma, and in addition two obols, and 1/5 of a *siliqua*; this is 24 1/5 *siliquae*. But let 24 *siliquae* be taken. These same silver coins are smaller than the earlier *dixépata* by approximately a sixth part, and smaller than the larger ones by a seventh part. Therefore, if 28 *siliquae* are valued at two gold *siliquae*—in the fourteen-fold ratio of gold to silver—then 24 silver *siliquae* will be worth 1 5/6 *siliquae* of gold. And this same proportion is seen when the individual silver coins are compared with one another: which is the ratio of the sums themselves, which in both cases amount to fourteen pounds of silver. For as the number 1,000 is greater than 864 by almost a seventh part of itself (that is 136), while 136 is almost a sixth part of 864: so 28 *siliquae* exceed 24 by a seventh part of themselves, namely 4, which is the sixth part of 24. For this reason, since the individual silver coins do not equal the price of two gold *siliquae*, but are less by two-sevenths of one *siliqua*, a *solidus* will no longer be valued at 12 silver coins, but at approximately fourteen.
But that passage in the Glossary seems to need more accurate weighing and illustration. For the fraction of the small units there is scrupulous and anxious. They affirm, therefore, that the sum of the silver *milliarenses* is 125: each of which has one *siliqua* with a *dodrans* (that is, one half and, in addition, one quarter). B Ὁ δὲ φόλλις ἀργύρια τοιαῦτα ρκε'· ἃ ποιοῦσι κεράτια ση', καὶ νούμμους θ'· ἤτοι πρὸς τὸ νῦν κρατοῦν μιλιαρίσια ρθ', καὶ νούμμους θ', γινόμενα ἐν χαράγμασι νομίσματα θ' μιλιαρίσιον ἕν, νοῦμμοι θ'. Here he has taken the word *νούμμους* in an unusual sense, *ἀντὶ τοῦ νομίσματος* (instead of *nomisma*), that is, for a solidus and a gold piece, just as the same Glossaries interpret *νούμμους* as *νομίσματα*. But for minute weights or coins, which run at twelve to a *siliqua*, as I shall presently make clear: while *νόμισμα* is properly called a *solidus*, which was its customary meaning. The Glossary of Henri Estienne [defines it as]: *νόμισμα*, solidus; and, *solidus*, νόμισμα. It is also called *χάραγμα*, which is properly the form and likeness, which the word *τοῦ νομίσματος* also expresses, according to Suidas; 125 silver *milliarenses* collect 218 *ceratia* and 60 *nummi*, which are, according to the present usage, he says, 109 *milliarenses* and 60 *nummi solidi*, with one *milliarensis* and three *nummi*. Which I interpret as follows: the individual *milliarenses* have the price of one gold *siliqua* and three-quarters. Therefore 125 *milliarenses* are worth 218 gold *siliquae* and three-quarters. He defines these quarters as nine *nummi*. Therefore a *siliqua* has twelve *nummi*, of which the *dodrans*, or three-quarters, are nine. And the *nummi* are either weight units, as I said, or small C pieces, to the weight of a single pound or of ounces; or the very smallest coins, whose knots were valued at 10 *siliquae*, or a silver *dixépata*, to the standard of a *siliqua*. And since a *χάραγμα νόμισμα*, or *solidus*, consists of 24 *siliquae*, and nine *solidi* of 216 *siliquae*: 125 *milliarenses* are valued at a little more than nine *solidi*, namely two *siliquae* and a *dodrans* more. From which it follows that 1,000 silver *milliarenses* are worth 1750 gold *siliquae*, which are 72 *solidi* and 22 *siliquae*, by which number of *siliquae* they exceed the gold pound. For if you define a *solidus* by 24 *siliquae*, 72 *solidi* (as many as are coined to a pound) take away 1728 *siliquae*: to which accrue the 22 superfluous ones, which complete the thousand silver coins. For 1728 *siliquae* require only 987 and 3/7 *milliarenses*, since 1750 *siliquae* require 12 4/7 *milliarenses*: so that each one has two *siliquae* less one quadrant, or one and 3/4 *siliquae*. And by this compact, if the fourteen-fold proportion of gold to silver established in those times is retained, 987 divided by 14 will give approximately 70 1/2 *milliarenses* for each pound. Which, deducted from 96 drachmae, leaves for each *milliarensis* a weight of one drachma and approximately six *siliquae*, that is 24 *siliquae*. And yet at that time 1,000 *milliarenses* would make a little more than a gold pound. Wherefore it must be seen whether at that time a *solidus* weighed a little more than 24 *siliquae*, or certainly whether, besides 72 *solidi*, a seventy-third, lighter one, of only 22 *siliquae*, was struck; so that with 1,000 *milliarenses* the gold pound was fully equaled. The Glossary proceeds, and says that these 125 *milliarenses*, if they are measured by the new canon, are 109, and nine *nummi* in addition; whence nine *solidi* or *νομίσματα* are formed, with one *milliarensis* and those remaining nine *nummi*. Which words sufficiently indicate the later return to those *dixépata* *milliarenses*. For 218 *ceratia* if divided by 109, give two gold *siliquae* to each *milliarensis*: of which sort the *μιλιαρίσιον τὸ νῦν κρατοῦν* (the *milliarensis* that currently prevails), he says—that is, the one proper to the time in which he was writing—was greater than the former, by a little more than a seventh part. Wherefore if 109 of that kind exhibit nine D *solidi*, 72 *solidi* or a pound of gold will make 872 *milliarenses*.
We have examined these trifles and minutiae of the coins, perhaps not without some tedium to the readers. But it was of such importance to know the power, origin, and property of the *milliarensis* and the *follis*, about which Epiphanius treats here: then to refute that inveterate error, approved by Scaliger, about the *milliarensis* being a *didrachmon* and the *follis* being a *tetradrachmon*. Which will be taught a little later concerning the *follis*. But as far as the *milliarensis* concerns us, let the sum of what has been argued thus far be: that the silver *milliarensis* was a coin, not a *didrachmon*, but something smaller, which was sometimes exchanged for two gold *siliquae*, sometimes for a slightly smaller price, and likewise was sometimes lighter, sometimes heavier. And then when it was lighter, the *milliarensis* ...
A became, as clearly appears, a part of the gold pound, from which it began to be called *miliarensis* by the Latins, following the Greek *miliarision*. For this reason it was also called *lepton argyrion*, so that it might be distinguished from the didrachm or an silver coin of heavier weight. Moreover, that species of *miliarensis* appears to have been military, because a donative or stipend was paid out in that form, and also because distributions and handouts were made to the people in that same currency, as appears from the Novella of Justinian, which we brought forward above. Hence Epiphanius interprets it as *stratiōtikon doma* or *dōron*, as do almost all the Glossaries along with him. The Glossary of P. Sirmond: *Stipendium* or *tribouton*, that which is gathered from small silver coins. Item: *Stipendia* are called public funds, because they are gathered from small silver coins. The same are also called *tributa*, from the fact that they are broken up for those who pay, or partitioned B among the soldiers. Therefore *stipendium* comes from *stips*, that is, small coins, which are called *lepta argyria*. Even though the amount of the *miliarensis* seems quite large, it was nonetheless numbered among the *lepta*. We shall treat of the *lepta* more fully in the following chapter, where we discuss the *follis*. We have put forward these points concerning the *miliarensis*, relying partly on conjecture and partly on the most certain authority of the ancient Glossaries. There will perhaps be those who contribute more certain information: not only will we not begrudge them this, but if they do so without abuse or detraction—which is something you can hardly get from most people—we shall accept it most willingly; and if they teach us better things, we promise to agree.
The passage of Epiphanius concerning the *follis* is weighed and clarified.
*Follis*, says Epiphanius, C is called *talantion*; it is double, that is to say, fashioned from two silver pieces, which are 208 denarii. A short time before he had said, *to argyrion*, that it is a coin which by the Romans, that is to say the Constantinopolitans, is called *miliarensis*. Now he asserts that the *follis* consists of these two silver pieces. The very words of Epiphanius bear this out, unless they should be judged as needing correction, which has been attempted in various ways by many. Scaliger, in his posthumous booklet *De re Nummaria*, p. 56, corrects Epiphanius in such a way that he substitutes *balantion* for *talantion*; then for 208 denarii (*sn'*), he substitutes 288 (*cclxxxviii*). He therefore judges the *follis* to be double the *miliarensis*, and equivalent to a tetradrachm, since he established that the *miliarenses* were didrachms; and that they contain 288 denarii, that is, small coins. But that first point in Scaliger’s conjecture was most powerfully refuted by us in the previous chapter, in that he defends the view that *miliarenses* were didrachms; the second point, that he reads *balantion* instead of *talantion*, I fear cannot be maintained: for although a *follis* is the same thing as what is called *balantion* in Greek, nevertheless the word *balantion* is not applied by the Greeks to the *follis* as a single coin, but rather as a sum of money and a collection or weight of coins, as the Glossaries signify. They make no mention of it as a silver coin, nor do I think it was called *balantion*, although I would not strongly object if it were used in that way by a certain analogy. For when properly the *follis* signifies that certain collection of coins, and a sum gathered, and shut up into one purse, it afterward came to be the case that purses (*folles*) were also called individual parts of the collection, and the coins themselves. Finally, as to why he added the sum of eighty denarii to the account of Epiphanius, he either had no cause, or he did not show what cause he had. Hotoman, in the book *De re Numm.*, confesses that he does not grasp this specific location of Epiphanius without complexity. Others promise that they will someday say what they think about it. I notice nothing in the words of Epiphanius that can seem so tangled and inextricable that one should desert the suit on that account. For this can be gathered simply, and without any emendation or interpolation: that the silver *follis* is a coin, which has been called a small *talent*, composed of two silver pieces, in which 208 small denarii are counted, that is, 104 in each silver piece. Why such a coin was called a *talent*, I either say I do not know, since Epiphanius was silent about it, or I find a cause which anyone can no more prove than refute with certain reason. The same I would assert regarding those denarii, the use and valuation of which were varied among diverse nations. Since it is so easy to finish the interpretation of that passage, yet lest so many learned men seem to have labored and hesitated over it in vain, we ourselves, not content with that simple and obvious declaration, have devised others, which to recount and explain one by one will bring more weariness than utility to the readers. Therefore I will propose one or two, if I first give this warning: that in the manuscript of the Royal Library, that passage is conceived somewhat differently. For I found it written thus: [...] D which reading does not seem to be unworthy of note to me. For the coin of the *follis* in Epiphanius is composed of two silver pieces: these we understand as *miliarenses*, each of which contains ten denarii. But these denarii are not those old Roman ones, but some smaller coins; which for this reason seem to be called denarii, because as many would fit into a silver coin. But there are many reasons that can be given as to why the name of a "small talent" was imposed on that coin. Just as these denarii may have been divided again into six *chalci*: so that 120 would fit into a *miliarensis*; how many in the talent of Epiphanius, which is 125 pounds, correspond to the Attic *minae*. Either this, therefore, or some other such ratio, may have been the reason why the name "talent" remained with the silver *follis*. Indeed, when Epiphanius asserts that the *follis* comprises two silver pieces, it is permitted to understand "silver pieces" as not *miliarenses*, that is, smaller and not those legitimate ones, but didrachms, which would nonetheless be in use. For there were many kinds of silver coins, to one of which the name *miliarensis* was given; yet not all silver coins were called *miliarenses*. Therefore, the *follis* could be a tetradrachm, composed of two didrachms.
A Aristotle says, "twenty-four *nummi*," and later "twelve." Behold, a talent consisted of twenty-four *nummi*, each of which was like the minae of the smaller talent. For Suidas writes, among those same Sicilians, that the ancient [value] was twenty-four minae, but now twelve. Although, instead of "minae," Scaliger corrects it to "*nummi*." But there were as many *obols* in a tetradrachm. By the same right, therefore, the talent of some people—perhaps the Cypriots, according to custom—might be called a *follis* of four drachmas. Finally, since we have it from the *Nomical Glossary* that a *follis* is 125 silver *nummi*, which are worth 218 *keratia*, or gold siliquae, one must wonder whether Epiphanius' words should be brought into line with that authority of the Glosses; so that first, instead of "two silver [coins]," we might read 125. Then, instead of 208 denarii, we read 208 *keratia*, unless perhaps *keratia* are also called denarii. For then the *follis* would be called a "small talent," which contains 125 small silver pieces, as many as are attributed to the larger and weightier talent. But in all these things we allow ourselves nothing more than mere conjecture and divination, so that no one may suspect that these things are offered by us in good faith as being true and verified.
For that which also seemed so to Scaliger, but on a false basis, since he believed the price of a *solidus* to be twenty-four drachmas, and the drachmas of two gold siliquae to be two, or one *miliarensis*. But there were twenty-four siliquae in a *solidus*, and 36 in a didrachm. Therefore the proportion of gold to silver would be as 18 to 4, which has been abundantly refuted in the previous chapter. But if a *follis* consisted of two silver didrachms of that kind, it would contain twenty-four *obols*, which is exactly the number of siliquae in a *solidus*. Wherefore, since a *solidus* has been assigned the name of a talent, as will be said later, the same name could also be attributed to the *follis*, because as many *obols* were counted in it as there were siliquae in a *solidus*. And I do not know if those old Scholia of Matthew, which we cited earlier from the Budé codex, might persuade us, which say that the silver *stater* earned the name of tetradrachm B because, when the ounce is divided into two and placed in two scales, it makes an equilibrium: "Whence, by the balance of the rule, according to the equality of the scale, it was called a *stater*." For it also alludes to the word and notion of a *talent*; and we know that a *talent*, just like a *stater*, is a balance. Therefore, a *follis* could be called a *talent* if it was a tetradrachm. Suidas also, although his words are corrupt, writes some things tending to the same point under the word *Obolus*: "But the silver talent of the present [time is] four, and the *nomisma* eight and six." But Suidas' reliability is generally slippery; for sometimes, without naming sources, he copies the bare words of authors. Indeed, that same scholiast, as we taught earlier, indicates that a silver *stater* collects a hundred denarii; each of these contains sixty *asses*, as the other reading conceives. In this way, there are six thousand *asses* in a *stater*, just as there are drachmas in a talent. However, we know that the name of *talent* was used by certain peoples not only for large sums but even for smaller coins. Festus makes a Neapolitan talent equal to six denarii: a Syracusan one equal to three denarii: a Rhegian one to a *victoriatus*. Pollux, Book IX, Chapter 6: "The Sicilian talent, however, was of the least value. The ancient [one], as AriCstotle says..."
(a) I had written about the *miliarensis* coin, and I had already commented on the preceding [matters] from the ancient Glosses of P. Sirmond, which he had described at Rome as torn and mutilated, when the *Basilica* Glosses were unexpectedly offered to me, having been published by Charles Labbé some years before, of which I had not yet had a copy. When I had read these through avidly, and begun to compare them with those former ones, I encountered many other things in them that stood in our own (although in many respects one Glossary was more complete than the other), and then that very passage about the *follis* which I have copied in its entirety, and furthermore another one about the *miliarensis* that is certainly illuminating, which is missing from Sirmond's. But before I begin to treat that, the reader must be warned concerning the *follis* gloss, that some things are conceived erroneously in Labbé's Glosses, which are to be corrected from our own. Among these the principal one is that which is falsely written in them D: "or according to the current *miliarensis* 9." It should be read "69 *miliarensia*," as the sense demands: for the *miliarenses* of the later form contain 109, and 218 *keratia*. Likewise, a little earlier, I read incorrectly in the same [text], where it treats the weight-based *follis*, that its individual denarii have "1 pound and 13 ounces." [alt-version omitted] I come now to the *miliarensis*: concerning which I found these things in Labbé's [Glosses]: "*Miliarensia* is the thousandth part of the pound of the time; for the Romans call a thousand *mille*, and thus he broke down the amount of the pound so that by it the thousand *miliarensia* might be preserved, so that one obtains 14 *miliarensia* per *nomisma*." I must say I was greatly pleased that what I had asserted, without any author and from mere conjecture, concerning the origin of that word, I later found in those Glosses, namely that they were called *miliarenses* because a thousand of them were reckoned in a gold pound. For it must be corrected, and instead of "time's pound" (α'), read "gold." They add, moreover, that a gold *solidus* is valued at fourteen *miliarensia*. By this reasoning, in order that seventy-two might be struck into a pound of gold, and each one might contain fourteen full *miliarensia*, slightly more than a thousand will fall into the pound: for there will be 1008; for 72 multiplied by fourteen gives 1008. If, however, you reckon exactly a thousand to the 72 *solidi*, dividing 1000 by 72, each *miliarensis* will obtain 13 8/9, that is, almost 14; but we have discussed the estimation and weight of the *miliarenses* copiously in that place.
A Furthermore, the tenth part of old, and later the sixteenth part of a denarius—if it were a drachma—was an obol, and in a chalcus there were seven *lepta*, or minutes. And yet, among Isidore, one does not proceed beyond the chalci. The quadrans was the fourth part of a denarius, and formerly existed as three ounces. According to Hesychius, it is the fourth part of a follis, or even a *lepton*. Epiphanius calls the shekel a quadrans; Isidore writes that it weighs the fourth part of an ounce, that is, two drachmas. Hesychius, and from him Suidas, says that a *codrans* is the whole, or two *lepta*. The same Hesychius teaches that an *assarion* is one and the same thing as a *lepton*, and the six-thousandth part of a talent. You see how uncertain the ratio of all these coins is, and how nothing can be pronounced about these trifles and minutiae unless rashly. LEST I omit in the meantime what pertains greatly to the matter, those same designations of coins, measures, and weights did not have the same notions and powers among different peoples, but were endowed with a higher valuation in one place, and a lower one in another. There are infinite examples of this, upon which it is idle and tedious to dwell; for as to what pertains specifically to the *lepti*, which are mentioned here, who could affirm anything certain about that class? Epiphanius says that the *folles* *kata denarismon* are two *lepti*. If the same *lepti* are the same as *lepta*, there would be seven in a chalcus, in an obol, which has eight chalci, fifty-six *lepti*, and in a drachma three hundred and thirty-six. Thus there would be in a drachma one hundred and sixty-eight of Epiphanius’s *folles*, and in an obol twenty-six. But *lepta* among the same author are different things; for he mentioned *lepta* of a talent above, and others of the *assaria*. Scholia on Matthew from the Budé codex say that there are ten *lepti* in a denarius, which is the hundredth part of a tetradrachm stater—that is, twenty-five drachmas. In addition to this, in Mark XII, 42, that widow, *ptoche*, that is, a mendicant, cast into the treasury *lepta duo, ho esti kodrantes*. Therefore, a follis will be the same as a quadrans. Hilary on Psalm CXXVIII interprets those "minutes" of the widow as two denarii, by the same word by which those coins are reckoned which the Samaritan in Luke chapter X paid to the innkeeper for the sustenance of the sick and wounded man, which Luke calls *denaria duo*. But the same kind of coin is not signified by the word denarius in both places. For much less is what the mendicant woman cast into the chest from her poverty than what that pious Samaritan contributed for the nourishment and care of the sick man. But neither can I agree with Bede, who at that passage of Mark thinks the widow's two "minutes" are a quadrans of a shekel, that is, five obols; nay rather, six obols; for a shekel collects twenty-four obols, or six drachmas, of which each is *hexobolos*. But there is something much more absurd, which I have learned recently has pleased some: that the widow's two *lepta*, which Hilary calls denarii, are those old denarii, the eighth part of an ounce; two of which render a quadrans of a half-ounce. For he reasons thus: A quadrans, which is said to have two "minutes" in the Gospel, is defined as the fourth part of an ounce; if two "minutes" are in a quadrans, then a "minute" is the eighth part of an ounce.
A Eight "minutes," therefore, aggregate into a single ounce, just as eight denarii [aggregate into a larger sum]; and in this way, a "minute" and a drachma, or denarius, would be equivalents. If these things were true—if the *lepton*, of which sort the widow cast in two, were the same as the silver denarius or drachma—then that donation would certainly not be a negligible one; nor would it be praised solely because of the widow's poverty, but also for its own significant value: that is, if, as was stated just before, the beggar woman had donated as much as was spent by that kind Samaritan for the nourishment and care of the sick man. Wherefore, B there is no doubt about the *alogistia* (unreasonableness) which arises from the fact that it is falsely believed that *lepta* or *lepton* everywhere refers to denarii or drachmae, and [the author] claims for his own invention—which he even says the most learned men have ignored—an authority. I confess, however, that this has remained unknown up to now, and that it is of much greater concern to the commonality of letters than that it should be brought to light. For it is most false. Who would interpret those two *lepta* of the widow as anything other than two small copper coins, coins of minimal value, that is to say, *chalci*, eight of which are counted in an obol? Reason itself surely persuades us that it was the most insignificant type of coin. Cyril calls those *lepta* "obols." Are silver denarii then obols, because Hilary interprets the same word "lepta" as denarii? These are mere trifles. For Hilary used "denarii" for small copper coins, just as Epiphanius did when, *kata denarismon*, he opposes it to what is *kata ton argyrismon*: and our own idiom has also adopted this for itself. But as for the fact that Mark calls those two *lepta* a quadrans, why should we consider them a quadrant of an ounce rather than of an obol, or indeed even of a *chalcus*? There are eight *chalci* in a drachma; the same number of "minutes" are set by some in a *chalcus*. Therefore, just as two *chalci* make a quadrant of an obol, and two *lepta* make a *chalcus*, so two ounces make a quadrant of a denarius or drachma. Therefore I say that there are two *chalci*, that is, a quadrant of an obol, in those *lepta* of the widow. This is also acknowledged by the Latin translator, who in Luke xxi, where the same story is told, translates *lepta* as "two small copper coins," namely *chalkia*. Whence also *chalkologoi*, "copper-gatherers": for *chalkos* is used indiscriminately for every kind of coin.
But, he says, Epiphanius writes clearly: "The siclus, which is also called a quadrans, is the fourth part of an ounce, half of a stater, and contains two drachmae." "He said," [the author] says, "that the two drachmae are what others call 'minutes'." But Epiphanius never said that these two drachmae were of the same kind as those *lepta* of the beggar woman: which is absurd and unheard of. We know that the fourth part of an ounce is two drachmae: why Epiphanius confuses these with the siclus, we have explained in its proper place. But that these two drachmae are the two "minutes" that the widow put into the treasury is neither proven there nor can it be established by any argumentation. C But look, the author is Hesychius, [who says] that a *lepton* is the six-thousandth part of a talent. Therefore six thousand *lepta* are contained in a talent. Moreover, in a talent... D the same as a "minute" and a drachma. This is the head of the proof; and yet it is very light. For the talent in Hesychius signifies not that huge sum of money which comprises six thousand denarii, but a solid gold coin; as Scaliger observed in his book *De re Nummaria*. But the words of Hesychius must necessarily be written down here: *Kodrantēs*, he says, *to pan* (the whole), or the fourth part of a *phollis*, or a *lepton*. *To de lepton hexakischilioston talantou; ho esti nomisma hen, he kokkoi treis*. (And the *lepton* is the six-thousandth part of a talent; which is one *nomisma*, or three grains.) *To de talanton litrai hekaton eikosi pente*. (And the talent is one hundred and twenty-five pounds.) *Ho de kodrantēs nomismata tria*. (And the *kodrantēs* is three *nomismata*.) *Ho de eschatos kodrantēs to tetarton tes pholeōs*. (And the last *kodrantēs* is the fourth part of a *phollis*.) Soon after: *Kodrantēs, to pan, he lepta dyo, to de lepton hexakischilioston talantōn*. How perplexing these things are, and how empty of the authority of a new commentary, no one fails to see. He asserts that a quadrans is the fourth part of a *phollis*, or a "minute." Afterward, that a quadrans contains two *lepta*. According to the former reasoning, a quadrans will be the six-thousandth part of a talent; according to the latter, the three-thousandth, because a *lepton* is said to be the six-thousandth part of a talent. Then, what will that *nomisma* be? The same as the quadrans? Or rather as the *lepton*? But immediately he defines three *nomismata* as a quadrans. Therefore a quadrans is three *nomismata*, and one *nomisma*. The same quadrans will be one "minute," and two "minutes." All of which are fallacious, inextricable, and confusedly accumulated; nor can they serve as testimony for a new fabrication. For if, because Hesychius teaches that a *lepton* is the six-thousandth part of a talent, it is therefore true that a *lepton* is the same as a drachma (because an Attic talent contains six thousand drachmae, and since the same Hesychius defines a talent as 125 pounds, that is, 120 Attic minae; and since it is double the Attic [talent], and therefore gathers twelve thousand Attic drachmae; such as we said above the Alexandrian talent was), why do we not conclude by the same right that a *lepton* is a didrachma, since that talent of which Hesychius speaks contains six thousand didrachms? With what confidence, indeed, does he select from that authority what he thinks makes for his own case, while rejecting what most strongly opposes it? For why does he affirm that Hesychius speaks of an Attic talent, when he says a *lepton* is the six-thousandth part of a talent, rather than believing Hesychius who speaks clearly and testifies that he understands that talent which is double the Attic one, and consists of twelve thousand drachmae? I return, therefore, to what I had proposed a little while ago, and I say that the talent there is a solid gold coin, or *nomisma*. Since the word *nomisma* in the more recent century is generally restricted to the gold solidus. Of this, if it is divided *kata denarismon*, the six-thousandth part is the quadrans, which is also expressed by the names denarius, and "minute," and other words indiscriminately. For they are accustomed, as we have indicated before, to be mixed with one another, and those appellations of lowly coins are confused, and the property of each is not everywhere retained.
A Therefore, a quadrans sometimes comprises two *lepta*, or *milliarisia* that are diminished or descending, sometimes it is taken for one *lepton*. Although it is more likely that it should be written in the former place, as it is in the latter, *or two lepta*, rather than *or one lepton*. For he seems to have looked to the words of Mark. And then the *follis* of Epiphanius will be the *quadrans* of Hesychius: although this *follis* is larger than that one: because a *follis* according to Hesychius will contain eight *lepta*, and it will perhaps be the same as an *obol*. But what kind of *folles* or *lepta* they are on both sides is as difficult to ascertain as it is useless to know, and to pronounce on it is rash and ridiculous. But that a talent according to Hesychius is a *solidus* is not only probable because he says it is the same as *one nomisma*, but also because the same can be gathered from Cassiodorus. In his book 1, epistle 10, these words are: "They wished a *solidus* to be six thousand *denarii*." Where Hotoman vainly conjectures that "six thousand *milliarisia*" should be read instead of "*millia denariorum*"; for a *solidus* is commonly estimated at twelve *milliarisia*, not six. The vulgate reading should therefore be retained. From which we learn that six thousand *denarii* were imputed to a *solidus*, which are called *lepta* by Hesychius. In this way, if twelve *milliarenses* are attributed to a *solidus*, each will collect five hundred *minuta*, or *denarii*. Why this seemed strange to Hotoman, there was no cause: since many more little coins could accrue to our gold coin, which was almost twice as small as the Roman one, if they are reduced to the lowest dregs of coins *according to the denarius*, which are commonly called *maculae*, *oboli*, *pitae*, or denoted by other words of this kind. But from this, the reason is also clear why the name of a talent was imposed upon a *solidus*. Namely, because it comprised as many thousands of small coins and *denarioli* as an Attic or common talent comprised of drachms. The rest, which follow in Hesychius, are foreign, and collected rashly, as is customary in Glossaries, in which the varied and often contrary meanings of the same words, collected from diverse authors, are frequently hammered together under one lemma. B as I would say with Eustathius, have been propagated. The *dixératoi* were the former silver coins that made up a *solidus*. Therefore, one hundred and eight silver coins corresponded to nine *solidi*. Just as many *solidi* contain one hundred and twenty-five *argyria lepta*, or *milliarenses*. Wherefore that former silver coin, which is called *dikeratos* by its name, contains one *milliarensis*, or *argyrium lepton*, and in addition 1/108 of the same. Therefore it is called *dikeratos*. Thus the small silver coins of Philip in Vopiscus. But that *to lepton*, or *ho leptos* taken alone signify a silver coin in that author, and without the addition of a substantive noun, I would not dare to deny rashly. This I know, that from all those things which have been brought forward to show this, nothing of the kind can be persuaded: but rather the opposite of all things is gathered. Unless perhaps one may dream that in that very passage of Epiphanius which is being discussed, the *leptoi* are silver *denarii*. Which, according to that new doctrine, one must affirm on the same principles. For he does not merely urge that *ta lepta* or *tous leptous* are sometimes used for silver coins; which indeed ought to be supported by some authority. But he entirely denies that they were bronze coins, which is most false. For even this very passage of Epiphanius evidently argues that *tous leptous* are bronze coins. Since it is one thing to be divided *according to the silver standard (kata argyrismon)*, another *according to the denarius standard (kata denarismon)*: and this later is the same as being reduced to bronze, or distributed into bronze species. When therefore he says that the *follis* is divided *according to the silver standard* into silver coins, and *according to the denarius standard* into *leptoi*, indeed, if we have any sense, he denies that the *leptoi* are silver coins and admits they are bronze. C This reasoning, therefore, does not make more learned men more knowledgeable so that they henceforth understand *leptoi* to be silver *denarii* or drachms, which they were hitherto ignorant of. We do not indeed deny that *argyria lepta* are accepted as silver coins, as in the Glosses of the Basilics, which assign one hundred and twenty-five *argyria lepta* to nine *solidi*. But *lepta* are called so in the same way that Hesychius testifies there are other drachms which are *leptai* (thin) and others which are *pacheiai* (thick), in the entry *Leptaleon*: "The drachms, the *leptai* being those beyond the obols, the *pacheiai* being those having more." But it does not follow immediately that *lepta* are taken for drachms simply and without addition. Just as because one talent was the "convenient" one, which lacked nothing, and another was the "great" one, which exceeded it: the words "great" or "convenient" do not for that reason signify a talent when used simply. In the same way, the Glosses call *argyria lepta* smaller silver coins, so as to distinguish them from larger ones, such as were didrachms or larger silver coins; from which the thousand-coin pieces [are distinguished]. D But to return to the *follis*, whose parts are the *leptoi*, that earlier doctrine does not even prove what it greatly desires to appear to be, that the *follis* is the same as the bronze *sestertius*, insofar as the *sestertius* was uncial, and that in the age of Constantine and Epiphanius. For the calculation by which it thinks this is proved is vain and frivolous. Hesychius, he says, writes that the *quadrans* is *the fourth part of the follis*: a *quadrans* is called by him [the fourth part] of two drachms, [there being] eight drachms in an ounce. Thus two drachms are the fourth part of an ounce, or of a *follis*, or of a *sestertius*. But who concedes this to him, that Hesychius is speaking of the *quadrans* of an ounce rather than of an *obol* or something else? Furthermore, when a *lepton* is said to be the same as a drachm, and a *quadrans* contains two *lepta*, is not the *follis* using two *quadrantes*, by the same principles and by the same authority of Hesychius, shown to consist of eight drachms, or *denarii*? Therefore it will no longer be a bronze coin, but a silver one, indeed quite large, in which there will be thirty-two *sestertii*; much less will the same *follis* be the same as a bronze *sestertius*. Whether this is true per se or not, I affirm nothing here. I argue that the things brought forward to demonstrate this are for the most part hollow and empty, and effect everything other than that for which they were produced. Let us conclude, therefore, that the *follis* was, according to the mind of Epiphanius, the very thinnest bronze coin, which contained two
leptas, or two minutes, in such a way that it might also seem to be the A quadrans of the Evangelist Mark. Furthermore, that *lepta* are tiny copper coins, or chalci, of the kind of which eight are counted in an obol: so that for this reason the two *lepta* are called a *kodrantes* by both Mark and Hesychius.
*Of the homonymy and ambiguity of the follis.*
Since the meaning of *follis* is so diverse, that it expresses both a collection of coins, and silver coins, and copper coins, it happens sometimes that authors abuse the word in such a way that it is difficult to reach by conjecture of what kind they are meant to be understood. Sometimes, however, from the very nature of the matter being discussed, if one applies a little judgment, it is discerned with no difficulty. Of this matter, not a few examples are at hand. But most notable are those which, from the Theodosian code, we have brought forward against the prince of jurisconsults in previous B sections. In which, although the rest have a sufficiently explained rationale, that first passage concerning "rash appeals," in which a fine of xxx *folles* is mentioned, can be ambiguous. Which, however, ought to be judged from the usage of jurisconsults and the merit of the case itself. So that either the xxx are silver coins, or just as many, as we said, of the *athroismata* (collections) of coins. In the Alexandrian Chronicle, however, where in the greatest scarcity of provisions, bread is said to have been sold for three *folles*, I interpret the *folles* not as gold coins, which never existed in the nature of things, but as silver, that is, six *miliarenses*. Eusebius, *Hist.* lib. x, cap. 6, records that Constantine had sent three thousand *folles* to be distributed to the churches of the African provinces for Caecilian, the Bishop of Carthage. There, the *trischilioi folleis* are just as many purses, and coins. For I shall not agree with an otherwise most learned man who, when treating of the *follis*, C places that example indiscriminately among those in which a *follis* is said to be an obol or a copper coin, as is in Moschopulus and Suidas. Such, that is, copper ones, were those of which Augustine records in *De civit.* lib. xxii, cap. 8. In which place he recounts a certain miracle, and the story of Florentius the tailor, a most needy man, who, praying at the memorial of the xx martyrs, asked them for money to buy clothes, and, he says, as he was leaving, the youths who were present kept harassing him, as if he had asked the martyrs for fifty *folles* with which to buy a garment. Soon, departing, he finds a huge fish cast upon the shore, which he sold to a certain cook for three hundred *folles*. These are Augustine's words. Certainly those *folles* are not silver, as I think (for a single fish would not be redeemed for so much by a cook, namely, for six hundred *miliarenses*, or even larger silver coins, which if they were didrachms, yield one thousand two hundred silver denarii), but they seem to have been copper coins of a clearly different kind than those Constantinian ones, three thousand of which that emperor distributed through all the churches of Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania. Wherefore those two examples should by no means have been confused. The same is to be estimated concerning those four hundred *folles* which Lucilla, a most noble woman, gave for the ordination of Majorinus; mention of which occurs frequently in the cause of the Donatists, as in Aug. lib. i *contra Crescent.* For it is ridiculous to say that those *folles* were of the same kind as those three hundred with which that tailor exchanged the fish. Wherefore I believe they pertain to silver *folles*. The same caution must be applied in other examples that occur here and there, so that according to the rationale of the argument, and from the *akolouthia* (sequence) of the discourse, it may be guessed of what kind of *follis* the discussion is being instituted by the authors.
DIONYSIUS PETAVIUS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, DISPROVAL OF THE SMALL DISPUTATIONS OF MATHURIN SIMONIUS ON THE ANCIENT RITE OF PENANCE IN THE CHURCH.
(Cf. Petavius's *Diatribe on the ancient rite of penance in the Church*.)
*To the Most Reverend Father in Christ, Gabriel de l'Aubespine, Bishop of Orléans, Dionysius Petavius of the Society of Jesus, S.*
Because the old laws of the Church prescribe in the quarrels and controversies of clerics, most ample Prelate, that they should submit themselves to the judgment and decision of bishops: I come to you willingly in this certain dispute of ours and shall do so studiously. For, having been accused by your cleric—a cleric himself, once yours—and then falsely and undeservedly charged with committing injuries against you, I have sought no other than yourself as my judge, or rather, as my defender and patron. For a few months ago, a certain obscure booklet was published by Mathurin Simonius, Dean of the Church of Orléans: whose appearance and title indeed promises certain "disprovals" [dispunctiunculas] of the ancient rite of penance in the Church. But in the letter which he inscribed to you on the front of the work, after he adorned you with the most true praises—though far less than your merit deserves—he complains to me thus: "Since it is the sign of a noble mind to acknowledge those through whom you have progressed, you do not prove that same thing by your own deeds, Petavius; you who, what you say were read by you in your own drafts, have anticipated publishing them without ever praising you." This is the head of that accusation, and of our crime: then the end of the writing of the booklet.
A The entire remainder of the discussion, which comprises seven chapters, has a place of accession. B And so, the following speech of his concerning the rite of penance is languid and weak, and, that the rest might not be lacking, it is naked and relies on the simple authority of the speaker, not on proofs and arguments; so that it is an indication that he did not write these things primarily for that purpose, but as a pretext for instituting another matter. But for my part, after I had looked about attentively and diligently, and turned my thoughts in every direction, I cannot understand by what motive he was led—a man whom I have hitherto not known even by sight, nor had any dealings with, nor indeed the slightest exchange of conversation, and whose name, finally, I had learned from nowhere else than the inscription of his little "Dispunctiunculae"—that he could be so moved against me as to publish such incredible things about me in that letter of his. I truly consider the Dean of the Church of Orleans to be not only a Christian and a Catholic, but also a good and upright man, and one not oblivious to Christian law and divine and fraternal charity. And I marvel all the more that a man of such age, prudence, order, and dignity—I will not say, invented these things about me, but wherever he finally received them—should have believed them so easily that he wished to persuade others as well. For what is more vain than that accusation which he levels at us, or conjoined with a lesser semblance of truth? He says that you, most eminent Prelate, had read my drafts before I published my *Animadversiones*. That this is far otherwise, not only you yourself know, but you have also openly testified to this fact to our friends who were inquiring about it: although he does not indeed say openly that I read your drafts, he speaks obliquely and captiously, so that those who run through his words less attentively might think that very thing to be affirmed, and thus remove such a suspicion from us. C Again, if anyone should wish to refute him regarding such an obvious falsehood, he could take refuge in this: that he did not say my drafts had been read by us, but that I had anticipated publishing into the public domain what he himself had read in your drafts, concerning which I had often conversed with you. But I confess that I did often dispute with you, as with others, on matters pertaining to doctrine, as well as to ecclesiastical customs and antiquity; and that I inquired about some things which I had not sufficiently explained; nor did I derive, in truth, a mediocre profit from this experience and conversation with you, as I would partly agree deeply with those things which were answered by you, and partly, relying on your fairness and kindness, I would contradict them: for while today no one surpasses you in the knowledge and exercise of those matters, you are also so wonderfully excellent in that candor and facility that, unlike him who wrote against me, you do not extort faith by authority alone, but leave to each one free judgment and the complete parts of defending and disputing what he wishes. But in regard to those things which I have commented on concerning penance and the other rites of the Church in the *Epiphanian Animadversiones*, I know that I have brought them forth, by the aid and benefit of GOD, from no other source than my own labor and industry, the assiduous reading of the Ancients, and several years of use and meditation. I can show my critic and accuser, for each of the chapters I treated there, those same authorities that I used, and many more noted and transcribed in my books, which I had studiously observed for many years past, just as I read each author—from Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers and ancient councils and canons. But I do not value such *chrestomatheia* (useful knowledge), nor whatever I may have deduced from them by ordinary reason or conjecture, so highly that I should consider them worthy of causing quarrels and altercations to defend their possession, much less so that I should, from an uncertain and false suspicion, procure certain infamy and hatred for another's name. And would that he at least, most eminent and learned Prelate, were willing to imitate your moderation: for when you published that most brilliant and laudable work of ecclesiastical observations after our *Animadversiones*, you did not complain even a letter about that plagiarism; which, as the matter was recent, was most fitting for him to whom these things belonged. D You, however, although you held contrary sentiments to mine on certain chapters, said nothing harshly or unkindly against us: and you explained your opinion, as a man no less prudent than learned, in such a way that you spared our reputation and friendship. As I have the right to thank you greatly for this lenity toward me, so I can be angry with my critic, who does not apply the same in a foreign cause which he deemed becoming and honest in yours toward me. Wherefore, regarding his wishing to write against me wherever he could and to correct my errors, I not only do not reproach him but, whatever his motive may have been, I take it in good part. For I see that this is in the interest of the common letters, and can be done honestly and laudably, since there is no one who does not either sin in some thing, or ought not to wish to be freed from his error as if from an evil and a certain disease. I therefore bear this attempt at refuting me not unwillingly: what I complain of is that, when he could have done so without injury and insult, he preferred not to do that very thing. For the one is tolerable, as I said, but as for the other—lest he think himself violated by me, I do not wish to express it in my words. Indeed, because I am with difficulty brought to write against Catholics, and especially against men of his order, even when provoked, I would have borne any unjust reproach of his not only patiently but even tacitly, if that attempt of his proceeded so far as to come against our opinion in a probable question—not against yours, most eminent Prelate, but rather against the common doctrine of the Church. For this one thing remained: that in most of the things he deemed sufficient to pronounce, he would not only depart from the very writings and authority of those whose defender and interpreter he makes himself, but dissent greatly from the common judgment of Catholics. The second chapter of his little "Dispunctiunculae," in which he sets forth what it is to "give penance," is clearly contrary to your and the Church's dogma, and he exposed it with reason whether prudent or imprudent. I omit now the rest, which I prefer you to read in the discussion which I wished to appear inscribed with your name, rather than to have it gathered from this brief and cursory letter.